Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.
I was only asking questions, from the responses it seems like Larry went the other way and made the game Axis favored.
Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.
I was only asking questions, from the responses it seems like Larry went the other way and made the game Axis favored.
Yes. Italians will rule Africa due to its 2 transports survviving
Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.
I was only asking questions, from the responses it seems like Larry went the other way and made the game Axis favored.
Yes. Italians will rule Africa due to its 2 transports survviving
I’m not so sure. UK is more likely to keep some ships, not do the Taranto raid, and then Germany is less likely to try Sealion. That would let UK purchase for South Africa. UK also has a lot of tricks they can pull maneuvering between the Middle East, India, and South Africa. I think the battle for Africa is going to be more exciting, but not slanted too much to either side.
Weldone Harry not introducing the rule that said UK government could be transfered to Canada. This rule made no sense.
Well done with scramble from territories that are not islands. I do not agree with the 3 limitation.
Bad done with not letting subs counter attack alone transports.
Some questions about ending the game immediatly instead of allowing a full round to try to recover.
Can someone point out the changes in a short list?
Its a new game.
I am interested in the UK/German naval outcomes.
sz 110 or sz109 coastal scramble with fig…? anyone. Hard to kill the entire navy if you do not know what your opponent will do.
@ll:
Not sure I like the Global victory conditions for the Axis… seems like the Axis can make a cheap victory grab by blitzing Asia.
Anyone notice The airbase/fighter in Scicily now? While it won’t STOP Taranto, it may help make it more even. I like that the scramble rules are now limited. ( it also makes a Scicily/Sardinia Airbases combo very nice)
I think it will flat out stop it for most players, especially if Germany lands a couple of fighters in Northern Italy. The odds are pretty bad of getting through to the battleship and transport, and that’s really what you want as the UK.
I Totally missed the change to Scramble! (Coastal territories) Yes, Italy is much more self-sustaining now- and that airbase in Morocco looks even more enticing- a way to control the Atlantic a bit.
@ll:
I Totally missed the change to Scramble! (Coastal territories) Yes, Italy is much more self-sustaining now- and that airbase in Morocco looks even more enticing- a way to control the Atlantic a bit.
AB in Morocco?
I do not see any details on the original page involving Amur vs other Soviet TT. Why would bypassing be different?
I saw this discussion and this quote on LH site, but I can not find the reason in his alpha plus rule changes
–---------------
Larry, you do realize that Japan can bypass Amur when attacking Russia? And that Russia can attack Japan through China without attacking Korea/Manchuria?
Really? :wink:
@WILD:
@ll:
I Totally missed the change to Scramble! (Coastal territories) Yes, Italy is much more self-sustaining now- and that airbase in Morocco looks even more enticing- a way to control the Atlantic a bit.
AB in Morocco?
Originally I was thinking about the one in Gibraltar. But now that I look at the board… a 2nd in morocco might be a good strategy for Italy to help seal off the Med… I’ll need to test that. (6 planes scrambling any approaching US fleet is a nice deterrent… or a nice start of 1)
I do not see any details on the original page involving Amur vs other Soviet TT. Why would bypassing be different?
I saw this discussion and this quote on LH site, but I can not find the reason in his alpha plus rule changes
–---------------Larry, you do realize that Japan can bypass Amur when attacking Russia? And that Russia can attack Japan through China without attacking Korea/Manchuria?
Really? :wink:
Originally when Larry presented the NAP you only got the bonus if Japan attacked Amur, or Russia attacked Manch, or Korea (boarder clashes). He has now realized that you could by pass those tt and your opponent would not get the 10 ipc’s.
The rule now states that if you declare war first your opponent (Rus or Jap) gets the 10 ipc’s
Edit tidbit:
I read an interesting game report about the 10 ipc NAP (forget who posted it). He said that Germany was at the gates of Moscow ready to capture the capital (Russia was unable to stop it on its turn). Japan (on its turn) decided to declare war on Russia breaking the NAP (Soviets got the 10 ipc bonus). So when Germany Crushed Moscow it also got the extra 10 ipc’s. Now that’s ironic!!
@UN:
Can someone point out the changes in a short list?
@UN:
Its a new game.
As in…?
I’m assuming you didn’t click on the link that calvinhobbesliker provided to start this topic that takes you to Larry’s site for the proposed changes “the list”
Edit tidbit:
I read an interesting game report about the 10 ipc NAP (forget who posted it). He said that Germany was at the gates of Moscow ready to capture the capital (Russia was unable to stop it on its turn). Japan (on its turn) decided to declare war on Russia breaking the NAP (Soviets got the 10 ipc bonus). So when Germany Crushed Moscow it also got the extra 10 ipc’s. Now that’s ironic!!
That’s why the attacker should pay money to the bank instead of the defender receiving money
I’m not liking the new victory conditions for the Axis. It further takes away from the global feel of this global game. If you can win by only playing well on one side, what’s the point of having both boards out?
considering before the United states could could completly ignore Japan every game and still win. This forces action on both sides.
This is probably the best change to the game.
I’m not liking the new victory conditions for the Axis. It further takes away from the global feel of this global game. If you can win by only playing well on one side, what’s the point of having both boards out?
Agreed. I am all in favor of making it easier for the axis to win more games but this destorys the game balance totally rather then restoring it. I could win pretty easily controling the axis I think with only one axis power having to grab a small number of VC.
byebye sealion, i’ll miss you x
under this new setup, US doesn’t have a major industrial complex?
United States
Western US - 3 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Minor IC
Hawaiian Islands - 2 Infantry, 2 fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Philippines - 2 Infantry, 1 fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Midway - 1 Airbase
Wake Island - 1 Airbase
Guam - 1 Airbase
Eastern United States – 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Minor IC
Central United States - 1 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Bomber, 1 Minor IC
Sea Zone 26 - 1 Sub, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 10 - Battleship, Cruiser, Transport, Carrier w/Tac & Ftr
Sea Zone 35 - 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport
Sea Zone 101 – 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport
They are all immediately upgraded to major when the US goes to war.
can you upgrade the minor complexes to major status paying the 20 IPCs while still neutral?
